100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

May 20, 1952 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1952-05-20

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

F

THE MICHIGAN DAILY

TUESDAY, MAY 20,

I TUESDAY, MAY 20,

mmpwqa

Academic Freedom

Iditor4 eote

"Hot, Isn"t IE ?"'°

And The Speakers'

Ban

The Progress of Ennui

The Lecture Committee Saturday
added another encroachment on aca-
demic freedom to a list which has been
growing rapidly since the March ban-
ning of Abner Greene and Arthur
McPhaul.
The banning of Ann Shore, Civil
Rights Congress member, differed in
one important respect from the earlier
ones: there was no pretense that this
was to be a "temporary" ban pending
further information-it was an out-
right veto. In defending its previous
decisions, the Lecture Committee made
a great point of the "temporary" na-
ture of the prohibition. It based its need
.for more information on the claim that
there were some grounds for suspicion that
Greene and McPhaul, since they belonged
to organizations branded subversive by the
Attorney-General, might advocate the vio-
lent overthrow of the government.
In the latest decision, however, the mere
label of "subversive" attached to Mrs. Shore
by virtue of her membership in a black-
listed organization and her recent expulsion
from the CIO were considered sufficient
grounds for a definitive, permanent quietus.
Thus the lines of interpretation harden.
Another nibble has been made at academic
freedom. The by-law stating "no addresses
shall be allowed which urge the destruction
Or modification of government by violence
or other unlawful methods . . ." now covers
not only died-in-the-wool Communists who
advocate force but also all those who can
by association, be conceivably suspected of
this intent.
U seemed of no consequence to the
Committee that this was to be a debate
on a specific topic, the charge of genocide
by the American government against the
Negro race. The other side of the picture
was to be presented by two eminently
capable men, Prof. Preston Slosson and
John Ragland of the Dunbar Civic Center.
It is our opinion that the two could have
dispensed with the genocide arguments
with ease, as simply as Prof. Slosson dis-
peused with Prof. Phillips' defense of
Communism two years ago. Such a de-
bate is even more than a mere speech,
fully consistent with the educational ideals
of this institutio nin presenting all view.
DORIS FLEESON:
W ASHINGTON-Sen. Estes Kefauver, too
liberal for the states' righters of his
native South, is too much the reformer for
the cities' righters of his party.
When the Senator paraded the sins of
the big city machines in front of the
television cameras last year, he violated a
kind of gentlemen's agreement long exist.
ing between them and Washington.
The fear that the Senator from Tennessee
may have the reforming habit is the basic
cause of the hostility big-city leaders gen-
erally oppose to his candidacy. Their states
are vital, they are powerful and shrewd, they
are extremely cooperative on the federal
front. With so much to offer a President,
their voice may well be heeded.
(Copyright, 1952, by The Bell Syndicate, Inc.)

points for the intelligent consideration of
the student.
However, a rather absurd arbitrary dis-
tinction was drawn between the two deba-
ters on the "pro" side, Mrs. Shore and
Lebron Simmons, Detroit Democrat and
trustee of a Protestant church.
In effect, the Lecture Committee reasoned
thus: It is permissable for a "non-subver-
sive" to advocate a "subversive" idea; it is
not permissable for a. "subversive" to advo-
cate a "subversive"~ idea.
It is hardly necessary to elaborate on
the fallacy of these labels as a criterion for
banning. Apparently a good "Democrat"
and "Methodist" is "safe" to discuss a
topic which a CRC member cannot debate.
The earlier Greene and McPhaul rulings
were somewhat understandable because of
the furor stirred up by the House Un-Ameri-
can sub-committee's Detroit investigations
and the pending consideration of the Uni-
versity budget by the State Legislature.
However, there was no such outside pres-
sure brought to bear in this case. It is now
clear that the Lecture Committee is intent
on barring all those whom they may sus-
pect of being "subversive" from speaking on
University property under any circumstances.
We feel this represents a curtailment
of academic freedom which canot go
unchallenged. We feel that the whole
concept and principle of the Lecture
Committee is wrong; however, there seems
to be little indication that the Regents
will see fit at present to abolish the Com-.
mittee. Perhaps a practical alternative at
this moment is to seek liberalized inter-
pretations of the by-law through what-
ever channels available.
Students have already expressed by a
significant margin their opposition to the
Lecture Committee. Student Legislature
now has a mandate to' lead a movement
for liberalization of the Committee. Ob-
taining the two non-voting student repre-
sentatives was a beginning, but it is also
necessary that both students be allowed to
vote. In time, a student majority on the
committee is essential.
Many individual faculty members have
expressed their concern over the recent re-
strictive drift in Lecture Committee policy.
It is now time for them to organize and
crystallize their collective opposition through
the Faculty Senate and other faculty groups.
The Administration should realize both
the damaging effect of the publicity on
such decisions, and the dangers inherent
in allowing curtailment of academic free-
dom. It is time for a thorough review of
the Committee policies. A constructive
first step would be the appointment to the
Committee of a faculty member devoted
to academic freedom to fill the seat now
vacant.
Meanwhile, Lecture Committee members
should pause and reflect on the absurd and
untenable approach they have taken in
*their task. There is nothing in the by-
laws to block a speaker merely because he
or she is associated with an organization
which is questionable; therefore these per-
sons should at the very least be allowed to
speak in a debate situation, where their
views are subject to the pull and strain of
competent inquiry. Here we would witness
the very essence of that quality which is
"in spirit and expression worthy of the
University." --Crawford Young
Barnes Connable
Cal Samra
Zander Hollander
Sid Klaus
Harland Britz
Donna Hendleman

A PATTERN IN banning speakers on this
campus is rapidly taking shape. With
each new action, this pattern becomes a lit-
tle more formal, a little harder to accept.
And the news of each successive ban is dull-
er. Conceivably, the power to react at all
will eventually become impossible, and ac-
tion which is at present obnoxious will be
taken as routine.
I recall that it was easy to be right-
eously angry back in the spring of 1950,
when a Communist named Herbert Phil-
lips was denied the right to take part in
a campus debate. 'Nearly everyone was
more liberal then-at least it seems so,
looking back on it from the distance of
two years. It was more a game than a
matter of morals, perhaps, to join in
protesting the Lecture Committee, claim-
ing that our rights as intelligent students
were being abridged by not being allow-
ed to hear a strange point of view. The
fight contained an element of sincere en-
thusiasm; we knew we were right, and
had no qualms about telling others how
we felt. We even thought, evidently a lit-
tle naively, that those others would lis-
ten to us, see the sense in our arguments,
and concede the point to us. After all,
our staff of heroes, from Jefferson on,
seemed wholly adequate.
There was some of this enthusiasm left,
though it was not nearly so concentrated,
when the Lecture Committee banned Abner
Greene and Arthur McPhaul early in March
of this year. Around The Daily our outlook
had been infected to a certain extent with
the prevailing national purpose: that there
actually was such a thing as a Communist;
that he was not simply a human being with
ideas which were repugnant to us, but was a
malignant individual motivated by a system
of doctrine which had as its goal our dis-
comfort, or destruction; that such a person
deeserved only to be silenced, then purged,
by whatever means at our command. We
found it more proper to complain that these
two men were not admitted Communists,
and therefore did not come under the same
rules as those applied before.
Again we thought we were right. These
men deserved to be silenced even less than
Phillips; they were not, at least, avowed
Communists, whatever doubts we might
have about their backgrounds. They might
deliver a lot of foolishness (one did, a few
days later), but they should be allowed to
speak. Other arguments, such as the ir
responsibility of the sponsor groups involv-
ed, despite a measure of validity, had little
bearing on the question of banning the
speakers. Suspicion had been entered as a
criterion, and with it, the definition of free
speech on the University campus went into
a new phase.
* * *
ALL THIS WAS said in March. All the ar-
guments in which we had placed so
much faith a few years before were polished
off and issued once more, but they failed
to ring so clear and true. The Un-American
Activities Committee had arrived in Detroit,
and with the very volume of its illogic, suc-
ceeding in making some of its viewpoints
seem logical. Civil liberties, once a strong-
hold to be defended easily against the bad
men, had come to have a connotation of il-
legality, principles employed to take swipes
at the constitution and proper citizens.
With the news on Saturday that the
Lecture Committee had banned another
proposed speaker, this time because she
was a member of a reputedly subversive
group, it was much harder to get heartily
incensed, though by this action the the-
ory of 'restriction became definitely more
serious. The pattern was closing in tight-
er, and we were being forced to admit that
its progress seemed inexorable. I tried to
write an editorial that night, dispassion-
ately outlining the reasons why 'I thought
the ruling to be unjustified, but after
working for several hours, I realized that
repetition had succeeded in dulling my re-
action.
The situation today seems to be this: pub-
lic support of civil liberties on this campus

-the freedom of speech, at any rate-is
beund to prove ineffectual in the long run.
I have heard complaints that The Daily is
spending too much space on this matter,
that people are tired of reading about it.
Perhaps the complaints are justified; I had
always thought that civil liberties were not
so much things to be agitated for as main-
tained, but the public temper appears to
have changed. Instead of leaving me with
an active interest in fighting against the
theory and actions of the Lecture Commit-
tee, its repeated outrages against a doctrine
of free speech has produced only an abiding
disgust.
-Chuck Elliott
IT DOTH NOT follow that the suppressing
of discussion with too much severity
should be a remedy of troubles; for the des-
pising of them many times checks them
best, and the going about to stop them but
makes a wonder long-lived.
-Sir Francis Bacon
WHAT IS MODESTY but hypocritical hu-
mility, by means of which, in a world
swelling with envy, a man seeks to obtain

X/etteP' TO THE EDITOR
The Daily welcomes communications from its readers on matters of
general interest, and will publish all letters which are signed by the writer
and in good taste. Letters exceeding 300 words in length, defamatory or
libelous letters, and letters which for any reason are not in good taste will
be condensed, edited or withheld from publication at the discretion of the
editors.

SDA Protest.. ..
To the Editor:
HE Students For Democratic
Action agreed last week to
sponsor the genocide debate, now
refusedcampus facilities because
of the banning of one participant.
We wanted this debate because we
believe that only the free give-
and-take of argument and unre-
strained study can lead to intelli-
gent political conviction and un-
derstanding.
We felt that the proposed debate
would spolight the fradulent
misrepresentation and insincere
duplicity of the well-publicized
charges of planed Negro genocide.
We refused, however, to prejudge
for others the exaggeration and
sheer falsehoods in these argu-
ments. Therefore we invited cap-
able representatives of both points
of view to a meeting which we are
convinced would be in the best
spirit of the function of a univer-
sity.
This banning was unexpected
and dismaying in itsimplications.
It means that no alleged Com-
munist may speak here on any
political subject. The Lecture
Committee decision contains much
tortured reasoning. A political
argument offered by Mrs. Shore
is banned, but the same point of
view defended by Mr. Simmons is
acceptable to the Committee.
The spiral of bannings began
with such international Commun-
ist functionaries as Gerhardt Eis-
ler. Now a religious group and a
liberal political club are refused a
debate because one of the four
personalities is an alleged subver-
sive. It is a tragic and dangerous
spiral, and no end is in sight as
more causes and more personali-
ties are labelled as subversive.
Agreement or disagreement on
genocide is not the issue. As the
MSC newspaper put it, the vital
controversy is whether or not "a
state university can allow itself
to become the instrument of poli-
tically-inspired control over stu-
dent access to conflicting ideas."
The responsibility and authority
assumed by the Lecture Committee
is too unfair and extensive for
toleration at a university. Their
decisions have become an unfor-
tunate distortion of vague and
dangerous wording in the Regents
directive.
Things have not gone well here
at Michigan. But we still have a
chance. The campus must unite
now to appeal to the Board of
Regents to clarify their directive
or modify it. The Lecture Commit-
tee must not continue to hide be-
hind a distorted interpretation of
"subversive" and "advocacy of
modification of the government
by violence" to extend its bannings
to any political idea shared by
Communists.
If these interpretations are not
reversed the only outcome of this
cuddled controversy will be a
muzzled campus.
-Ted Friedman, for the
SDA Exec. Comm.
# F, ,
Public Scorn. . . .
To the Editor:
IT WAS ORIGINALLY my inten-
tion, as a satiric device, to
write this letter in the style of the
samples of English I shall present-
ly hold up to public scorn. Several
attempts have convinced me I
am not capable of it. My pen
shrinks from the task; the paper

ing of rain-making, "This recent
discovery can be of great value
or it can be disabused by man as he
desires, he concluded."
In a letter to the editor from Al
Moore:
"Is not, Mr. Jaffe, religion par-
taken by the greater majority of
the students on this campus?"
Let us rest a moment before I
present the crowning achievement
of May 15th's Daily. It is the con-
cluding paragraph of a review of
the book "They Went to College."
The review itself is not bad, though
I thought the statistic about col-
lege graduates being younger as a
group than non-college graduates
called for some explanation. But
the paragraph:
"One thing more needs to be re-
emphasized. Mr. Havemann states
early in the first chapter that this
is not the kind of study that tells
you whether college has caused
such things as higher incomes,
marriage rates, politicaliopinions,
or all of the rest. But it will not
tell you if college is the reason for
their being like this."
Now there, I suggest, lies a sen-
timent which cannot be re-empha-
sized enough!
--Ralph A. Raimi
EDI~TOR'S NOTE: The "crowning
achievement" is the work of a myo-
pic proofreader-irregardless, an end
to such disabuse can hardly be re-
emphasized enough.
* * *
Appreciation . ..
To the Editor:
WHEN I SEE the tanks sitting
on the diag, I realize how
wonderful the limestone siding is
on Angell Hall.
When I see the Armed Forces
marching down State Street, I
am overjoyed at the thought of
the happy, halcyon days-when we
had spring riots.
When I see the tanks sitting on
the diag, the tuition increase
seems so small.
When I see the Airmed Forces
marching docwn State Street, Then
I can appreciate the front page
picture in the Daily of GeneralI
MacArthur looking so much like
General DeGaulle.
-Carl Klaus

MATTER OF FACT
By JOSEPH and STEWART ALSOP
WASHINGTON-James P. McGranery, the Pennsylvania judge the
President has chosen to clean out corruption in the government,
will probably be confirmed as Attorney General of the United States
shortly after these words are printed. There is still time to ntoe,
however, that this event is likely to turn out to be another jolly joke
on the American people.
The peculiarities of the McGranery record have not yet been
publicized because the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee. Sen. Pat McCarran, carefully closed the hearings when the
more curious evidence was being given. Sen. McCarran seems to
have a fellow feeling for the Attorney General-nominate, which
perhaps derives from their common friendship for Pan American
Airways.
The oddest testimony, now released on motion of the Judiciary
Committee minority was given by the young Turk Democratic lead-
er of Philadelphia, Richardson Dilworth. Dilworth and McGranery,
admittedly, are old-time political enemies. Yet Dilworth's testimony
was buttressed by an elaborate apparatus of photostats and court
records. And it cannot be lightly dismissed, since the main facts are
not disputed.
In brief, in the summer of 1939, when King George and Queen
Elizabeth of England were due to visit this country, an Irish revolu-
tionary, Sean Russell, came here with the avowed intention of assas-
sinating them. He was promptly picked up by the F.B.I. The Clan Na
Gael, an extremist Irish group, thereupon persuaded McGranery, then
a Democratic member of Congress, to try to get Russell released. And
at McGranery's request, President Roosevelt allowed Russell to leave
the country after $5,000 bail had been posted.
This $5,000, raised with great difficulty from rich members
of the Clan Na Gael, was deposited with McGranery as surety
against Russell's bail bond. Part of the money was transmitted
to McGranery by James McGarrity, a Philadelphia chieftan of
the Clan Na Gael. The rest was handed to MGranery direct by a
Clan Na Gael officer, James Brislane. Russell left the country,
and in 1941, the Clan Na Gael began to ask for its money back..
By 1944, although there was no proof of Russell's whereabouts,
his bail bond was dismissed. This removed the only pretext for
McGranery's holding the $5,000 of surety money, and the Clan
Na Gael grew more insistent on being repaid.
No less than seven lawyers applied, at different times, to Mc-
Granery. One of them, Thomas M. J. Vizard, testified that in 1945
McGranery offered him a deal, whereby he would give the Clan Na
Gael half the money and keep half himself-thus, in effect, acknow-
ledging the Clan's claim. Meanwhile, McGranery had first been ap-
pointed to a high Justice Department post, and then, in 1946, had
been named a District Court Judge. Possibly because no one likes to
sue a Federal Judge, none of the lawyers perssed the Clan Na Gael
claim until the Clan retained Dilworth.
Dilworth brought suit against McGranery on the Clan's behalf in
1948. Despite his offer to Vizard, McGranery now alleged that the
$5,000 he was holding was really the property of the Clan's Philadel-
phia chieftan, McGarrity. McGarrity had died in 1940. McGranery had
never made any attempt to acknowledge his supposed debt of $5,0
to McGarrity's estate. McGranery's signed receipts to the Clan Na
Gael were entered in evidence. Hence the court ordered McGranery to
repay the $5,000 to the Clan Na Gael, less about $1,200 of expenses he
claimed to have incurred in obtaining Russell's release.
In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dil-
worth characterized the whole business as a "shabby" attempt at
"misappropriation." McGranery hardly attempted to answer Dil-
worth, except to point out that Dilworth was a member of Ameri-
cans for Democratic Action. This greatly outraged Sen. McCarran
and several of his colleagues who then denounced Dilworth as a
probable subversive.
In a-ddition to Dilworth, Thomas McBride, one of the most respec-
ted leaders of the Philadelphia bar, also appeared against McGranery.
McBride testified that McGranery was a legal ignoramus, totally
lacking in judicial temperament. As evidence, he offered the enor-
mous number of reversals of McGranery's judicial decisions by the
Federal Circuit Court. Among the McGranery errors cited, were such
really fantastic rulings as the denial of the right of counsel to a de-
fendant in a criminal case, and a charge to a jury grossly confusing
the nature of "reasonable doubt." Evidence was also offered that after
the Clan Na Gael case, McGranery sought to use his judicial power to
revenge himself on Dilworth, through one of Dilworth's clients.
Peculiarly enough, the minority members of the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee who are opposing McGranery's confirmation
have subordinated these really shocking charges that McGran-
ery tried to misappropriate funds and is a legal incompetent. These
Republican Senators voice their loudest dissatisfaction with Mc-
Granery's comments on President Truman's steel seizure, and with
his explanation of his role in the "Amerasia" prosecution while
he was in the Justice Department.
The explanation of McGranery, both as Federal Judge and as
Attorney General-nominate, is simple enough. When Sen. and Mrs.
Truman first came to Washington, Rep. and Mrs. McGranery were
good neighbors to them. In short, McGranery is another Truman
crony. He is also a man of considerable surface charm. But whatever
the rights and wrongs of the Dilworth and McBride testimony, the

evidence certainly does not suggest McGranery can be counted on for
the great clean-up of the Federal government, which he has said will
be "as easy as pie."
(Copyright, 1$52, New 'F'ork Herald Tribune, Inc.)t

°a

(
/

)

A

N

g__CURRENTMOVIs

;i.

A

At The Michigan . .
BELLES ON THEIR TOES, with Jean-
ne Craine and Myrna Loy.
T HIS SEQUEL to "Cheaper by the Dozen"
seems to have been made primarily to
give Jeanne Craine and two very similar
young ladies a chance to have 1910-type
romances. Their suitors range from a rac-
coon coat in a red Stutz roadster to a su-
perbly clean-cut young doctor. 'Even Myrna
Loy, as the recently widowed mother who is
also a lady engineer, has a wealthy Edward
Arnold to keep her from becoming too tedi-
ously domestic.
After a moneyed ogre of an aunt tries
unsuccessfully to steal a couple of the
choicer children so they can have "ad-
vantages," the family's problems are re-
duced to simple ones of money. None of
the children are sent into sweatshops, of
course. Rags and poverty are avoided
simply by trusting in Providence, which
pays off handsomely in this case.
Apart from the heroines above, the rest
of the family does little more than march
single file through doorways, a process that
makes them seem like a gross instead of a
mere dozen. Even after two hours it's almost
impossible to distinguish one attractive ju-
venile froni another.
The anecdotal nature of this material,
though it provides some fairly funny scenes,
does not make for a very well integrated
movie. One has the uncomfortable feeling

At The Orpheum . ..
MIRACLE IN MILAN, with Francesco
Golisano.
T HIS "most honored picture of the year
(1951)" does not quite measure up to its
reputation. After establishing a good num-
ber of symbolic characters and situations,
and constructing a basically sound plot, it
fails to take full advantage of them.
With such potentially dramatic elements
to work with it seems that the picture might
have been transformed into a lesson in
charity, or love, or some similar higher
quality of human nature. Instead the pri-
mary aim appears to be to mage the char-
acters representations of people we might
know. Although there is nothing wrong with
a study in character as such, when it is
built around this type of fantasy it doesn't
seem to materialize.
The story begins well enough, with an
old lady discovering a baby in her cabbage
patch. Her death, followed by a singularly
pathetic funeral, sends the boy to an or-
phanage; upon his release he takes up
the life of a tramp-a big-hearted gener-
ous tramp with ideals about happiness
and the nobility of man. He builds a rea-
sonably livable camp for the hoboes, who
discover oil on the land and arouse they
interest of the grasping businessman who
owns it. His attempts to evict them lead
to flights of incredible miracles, culminat-
ed by their escape on broomsticks to a fin-
er. hannier land shave the clonds "where

DAILY OFFICIAL BULLETIN

I

(Continued from Page 2)
Spring Concert by University of Mich-
igan Choir, Maynard Klein, Conductor,
8:30 p.m., Wed., May 21, in Hill Audi-
torium, with Norma Heyde, soprano,
and Arlene Solienberger, contralto, as
soloists. The concert will open with the
Michigan Singers presenting works by
Tomas Luis de victoria, DiLasso, and
Gabrielli; the Women's Choir will fol-
low with Debussey's The Blessed Damo-
zel, after which the Michigan Singers
will return with Brahms' Fest-und Ge-
denkspruche. The Men's Choir will sing
1Healey WilIan's The Agincourt Song,
with Donald van Every and Robert
Kerns, soloists, and Robert Elmore's
The Prodigal Son, with James Fudge,
John Wiles, Russell Christopher featur-
ed. The Michigan Singers will close the
concert with Neue Liebeslieder by
Brahms. The public will be admitted
without charge.
Exhibitions
Rackham Galleries: 1st Michigan Re-
gional Art Exhibition, auspices Exten-
sion Service. Museum of Art, College
of Architecture and Design. Daily 10
a.m. to 10 p.m., through May 31. The
public is invited.
Events Today
Senior Table Carving. A table is now
available in the Union Taproom for

America, movie and election of officers
for Fal semester. All members are urg-
ed to come.
International Meeting at 7:30 p.m. in
the Ann Arbor Room of the League,
in charge of the International commit-
tee of SL. All presidents of internation-
al clubs are invited and others interest-
ed are urged to attend.
square Dance Group meets at Lane
Hall, 7:15 p.m. All students welcome.
S. R. A. Council meets at Lane Hall,
5:15 p.m.
Coming Events
Armed Forces Communications Asso-
ciation. May meeting, 8 p.m., Thurs.,
May 22, 1041 Randall Laboratory. Prof.
H. R. Crane will describe the principles
of operation of the synchroton follow-
ed by a visit to the Synchroton Labora-
tory.
Undergraduate Botany Club. Last
meeting of the year, Wed., May21, 7:30
p.m., at Dr. Clover's house, 1522 Hill
St. Mr. Fred Case will speak and show
slides,
Wesleyan Guild. Matin service, 7:30
a.m., Wed. In the chapel. Do-Drop-In
for tea and chatter, 4 to 5:30 p.m.,
Wed. in the lounge. Cabinet meeting,
8:30 p.m., Wed. in the lounge.

Sixty-Second Year
Edited and managed by students of
the University of Michigan under the
authority of the Board in Control of
Student Publications.
Editorial Staff
Chuck Elliott ........Managing Editor
Bob Keith .. ....... City Editor
Leonard Greer baum, Editorial Director
Vern Emerson ..........Feature Editor
Ron Watts .............Associate Editor
Bob Vaughn ..........Associate Editor
Ted Papes .........Sports Editor
George Flint ....Associate Sports Editor
Jim Parker .....Associate Sports Editor
Jan James ............ Women's Editor
Jo Ketelhut. Associate Women's Editor
Esress Stafj
Bob Miller ...........Bustnews Manager
Gene Kuthy, Assoc. Business Manager
Charles Cuson ....Advertising Manager
Milt Goetz........Circulation Manager

.4

4.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan